[Tig] Premature Death of SR
Jeff and Jill Jones
jeff-jones at att.net
Mon Mar 21 15:02:37 GMT 2011
Craig. . . Dude. . . . I'll listen to James Cameron and George Lucas any
day. . . Or Robert Zemeckis, before you. But I guess you know more than
them. The days of shooting on location are ending. The studios will sell off
their real estate. Are you at all aware of the number of Green Screen stages
opening up in Los Angeles? Hmmm. Why is that? Must not be cheaper, huh? Do
you really want to perpetuate the old myth's in post? I guess you have to,
to keep ripping them off. Sorry to do no one any good deeds here, but my
good deeds all go to my clients not the TIG.
And I don't need a salt mine with correct temperature fluctuations to store
my images. I guess those salt mines are pretty cheap too, huh?
Color Image Post
From: "Craig Leffel" <craig at optimus.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 10:40 PM
To: "Jeff and Jill Jones" <jeff-jones at att.net>
Cc: <tig at colorist.org>
Subject: Re: [Tig] Premature Death of SR
> You do no one any good deed by posting here that digital processing and or
> shooting is automatically cheaper than film. Sure, I'm as tired of grain
> as the next guy, and there are digital formats I absolutely love.. But you
> don't have to pay for dailies? Really? Who pays for the editorial files to
> get made from R3d to Pro-res or Dnxhd? No waiting? what planet do you live
> on? Sure, if someone wants to edit directly with no lut, or straight off
> in-camera qt's, or if they really only want to edit in FCP.... I sorta get
> your point, which I think is weak at best. I don't know any commercial
> editor that doesn't want files to look good, be exactly right to edit
> with, and match TC to a higher res file for finish than what they are
> editing in. I realize that it's not the norm, but it certainly is in
> commercial land.... And digital acquisition quite often means confused,
> time consuming, and costs a lot more to make / convert proper elements and
> store them / ship them. At least in my line of work. And you magically
> don't have to worry about digital storage for 50 years? Do you know
> something about storage arrays I don't??? Film is less archival and costs
> more to store than Digital files?? Really? 50 years?
> Craig Leffel
> Senior colorist / Partner
> Chicago / Santa Monica
> This has been a Tablet like transmission.
> On Mar 20, 2011, at 8:20 PM, "Jeff and Jill Jones" <jeff-jones at att.net>
>> I'm sure film makers are rushing to add more
>> expense to their post (shooting film). You get to wait for your dailies.
>> . .
>> pay for lab processing. . . pay for a telecine suite to grade in. . .
>> film grain moving like ants over your image on an LCD or plasma and find
>> place to correctly store your film for what? . . Fifty years. That's not
>> big of an expense I guess. (sarcasm in use)
>> Jeff Jones
>> Color Image Post
More information about the Tig